Privatisation, decentralisation and devolution are three ideas in good currency that have permeated the debate on cultural policy over the past fifteen years. They are typically used as if there were a broad consensus as to their meanings and implications, but, in fact, these three words stand in for a much more complicated set of views and understandings of appropriate directions to take in cultural policy. This article considers the various motivations for each of these inter-related ideas and demonstrates that a precise and nuanced knowledge of policy intent is critical to understanding their implications for policy. Whatever words are used to describe a particular place's cultural policy, if the intent of that policy is concealed, intentionally or unintentionally, in a vocabulary whose implications are neither clearly spelled out nor fully appreciated, it will be impossible to know exactly what is to be done and how it is to be judged.